Trump loses in court on crackdown on sanctuary cities

San Francisco Chronicle

April 26, 2017

Photo: Eric Risberg, Associated Press

City Attorney Dennis Herrera makes his way to a podium to talk about a federal judge's order blocking any attempt by the Trump administration to withhold money from "sanctuary cities" during a news conference at City Hall Tuesday, April 25, 2017, in San Francisco. A federal judge on Tuesday said the president has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending. U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the preliminary injunction in two lawsuits, one brought by the city of San Francisco, the other by Santa Clara County, against an executive order targeting communities that protect immigrants from deportation. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

City Attorney Dennis Herrera makes his way to a podium to talk...

President Trump’s anti-immigrant losing streak is getting longer. Following a rebuff on a travel ban from Muslim-majority countries, his threat to withhold money from sanctuary cities was stopped by a San Francisco federal judge.

The White House should see the pattern. A crackdown on undocumented immigrants that sold so well on the campaign trail doesn’t cut it in the courtrooms or the scores of cities protecting their residents.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III halts for now a nationwide Trump dictum that sought to cut federal money to localities that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities. It’s a crucial win for cities battling the White House’s ill-advised plan.

The judge noted that Congress, not the president, decides spending rules. That puts the president at odds with the Constitution. Scores of cities and counties with varying sanctuary protections were watching the outcome, with billions in federal revenue at stake.

Administration lawyers argued it was a case of no harm, no foul, since nothing has happened yet to San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, which brought the case. But Orrick cited repeated statements by the president and his surrogates, such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions, about their determined plans to strike at sanctuary cities. Trump had signed an executive order five days after taking office announcing his intentions.

The antisanctuary city campaign is among Trump’s biggest issues, with San Francisco as a major offender. The president has frequently mentioned the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle by a undocumented immigrant released from jail despite a hold request from border officials.

But that case shouldn’t invalidate rules designed to protect other immigrants from wholesale deportation, as the White House envisions. The funding cut now on hold is part of this sweeping and ill-conceived crusade.

Trump lashed out at the ruling and the earlier one on the fate of his travel ban. The two outcomes are “both riduclous things. See you in the Supreme Court!” he tweeted. He went on to accuse his opponents of “judge shopping” by taking their challenge to the Ninth Circuit, based here. But Orrick is a trial court judge, not a jurist in the appeals circuit that conservatives despise.

Fueling his anger, no doubt, is the timing: just days before the 100-day marker of his presidency. His vaunted push on immigrants is stalling both in court and in Congress, where he’s dropping a budget push for a wall along the Mexican border.

It’s time for the president to take another course, one that doesn’t lead him to defeat in the courts and on Capitol Hill. His broad-brush assaults on undocumented immigrants, local governments and legal protections isn’t acceptable or humane.